It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution is a farce: Evidence

page: 31
27
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: BlackManINC
I'm not calling science a fairy tale, just evolution.


Evolution is science and that hardly addressed the point of my post either.

Breeding is a form of evolution, you know this right??? Natural or unnatural doesn't matter, they both show the process of evolution. We've done it ourselves with animals like dogs. We created and still create variations of dog breeds by use of unnatural selection. Are you suggesting that really, secretly, they are actually being Created and it's not our breeding that is making certain breeds come out like they are???


Well for once, I actually see real science posted by the evolutionist camp. Yes, breeding various species of dogs is a scientific fact. But here is the kicker mOjOm, you can breed different types of dogs as much as you want, for as long as you want. Breeding two dogs will not begat a horse, or an ape or any other kind of animal. If this isn't the point you are trying to make then you have no point at all in the first place, because this scientific observation is not something that creationists disagree with.




posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC


What has been shown as the input of new genetic information isn't even "created" for one, what is observed is the information is either stolen from other existing organisms of the same kind, or its reshuffled, or the information is lost altogether.

No, that is not the case at all. First, mutation causes genetic polymorphisms to arise — new genes, to put it simply. Second, when genes transfer from one organism to another, they don't always function in the same way. A new expression is effectively a new gene.


There is nothing new added that will magically change one kind of life into another.

I'm puzzled by this. Do you think life comes in different 'kinds'? That animals are a different 'kind' of life from plants? That humans are a different 'kind' of life from animals? Would you care to explain what the difference is?

And while we're on the subject, would you care to explain the difference between animate and inanimate matter? This is something I have never been able to understand. It seems obvious at first, but on closer inspection none of the attributes that seem to create a distinction between life and dead matter are actually unique to one or the other. Very disturbing.

Again, thank you for your patience.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: BlackManINC


The mechanisms given that is called micro evolution never adds any new information to the gene pool that would lead to new organisms no matter how many millions of years of time you give it.

Does this mean you don't believe that new genetic information is created through mutation, horizontal gene transfer from bacteria and viruses, etc? Or do you mean that this information is insufficient to cause the changes you refer to as 'macroevolution'?

I look forward to your answer. Thank you for your patience.


What has been shown as the input of new genetic information isn't even "created" for one, what is observed is the information is either stolen from other existing organisms of the same kind, or its reshuffled, or the information is lost altogether. There is nothing new added that will magically change one kind of life into another, because the information received isn't anything new in the first place. This is why the examples given doesn't even count as circumstantial. Real circumstantial evidence is our genetic similarity to some other creatures like apes and cats, which I as a Christian can just as easily attribute to a common designer.



okay, right there. explain to us all in detail how your christian theory is superior to evolutionary theory. what questions has your theory answered that evolution has not and how are your answers more plausible and evidenced than evolution. If evolution is a farce, i want to see what a good theory looks like and it sounds to me like you are convinced you have one.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Well, ok then. So there are some examples of the Evolutionary process which you do accept then. That's all I'm trying to do for right now is find out where your head is at. At least now I know that the idea of Natural/Artificial Selection within breeding is accepted. That's a start.

I don't know why the hell you would assume evolution is going to turn a dog into a horse or why the hell that is the proof you're looking for because that's just insane, nor would I try and prove something like that.

Changing dogs into horses isn't evolution nor has it ever been part of it. Where has anyone ever said this??? You are clearly misunderstanding or misrepresenting what evolutionary theory is about. Dogs into cats or whatever has never been an evolutionary claim as far as I know.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Well, this thread is going absolutely nowhere but in circles. as long as theists keep saying no, it doesn't matter what anyone proves. This is an exercise in futility. on the bright side, when they find our fossils in 50 million years, no one will care what we thought or believed in.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I think they are asking for evidence of common descent. That's what they are referring to when making statements about one creature becoming another kind of creature.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I think they are asking for evidence of common descent. That's what they are referring to when making statements about one creature becoming another kind of creature.


This is, after all the basis for their entire belief in evolution, of which they have provided no evidence for whatsoever.
edit on 28-11-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC
This is, after all the basis for their entire belief in evolution, of which they have provided no evidence for whatsoever.


You need to stop making opinionated statements that define what and why about other peoples beliefs as if you know what you're talking about or that it' is anything close to being a known fact.

Saying anything is "their entire belief in evolution" is completely dishonest. There are different reasons that people believe in evolutionary theory and to say they all hold that same belief as their reasoning is untrue.

What you're talking about is called "Speciation" and there are more than one theory for why and how it might work as well.

You making that statement is the same as me saying that all Creationists have their belief because they were all born to Creationist Parents. That would not be true at all even though it may in fact be true for some.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Nothing to say to my post eh? Too bad. Some people actually are here to learn new things, and improve their understanding. Some are here to intentionally spread ignorance and deceive others to sell their belief system. Good to know which category you fit in.

You keep responding but haven't yet addressed a single part of the evidence, you pretend it doesn't matter or that there is some magical barrier that prevents a certain feature from changing. There is not. Your genetic code defines every single aspect of your being. Why would changes not be able to add up over time? You keep denying this but haven't explain why. If you're here to preach, you are in the wrong thread.
edit on 29-11-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I think they are asking for evidence of common descent. That's what they are referring to when making statements about one creature becoming another kind of creature.


This is, after all the basis for their entire belief in evolution, of which they have provided no evidence for whatsoever.


Here's a start for you to read, digest and understand at your leisure.
Feel free to ask for explanation of aspects you don't understand.

www.scientificamerican.com...
phylointelligence.com...

I get the feeling though that you won't read them.
And if you do, it will be the title and then you'll dismiss them.

Jeremiah 5:21



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I think they are asking for evidence of common descent. That's what they are referring to when making statements about one creature becoming another kind of creature.


This is, after all the basis for their entire belief in evolution, of which they have provided no evidence for whatsoever.




An operative definition of evolution is "descent with modification from a common ancestor". It's the population-level cumulative effects of what happens when life does what life does. Your ludicrous "Breeding two dogs will not begat a horse, or an ape or any other kind of animal." flies completely in the face of life doing what life does, along with everything else that the theory of evolution says.

Your description of how evolution should work is sheer nonsense, so much so that you should not be the least bit surprised that it leaves us all staring at you as if antlers were growing out of your face. Your typical creationist nonsense I've heard repeatedly over the years. A new species of, lets say a moth, came into existence, creationists would always shout "But they are still moths.'' Wtf else would they be? According to your ridiculous claim, they should have become fluffy kittens? Lol..Why? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever! HINT.. this is the point where we have no other choice but to try to slap some kind of sense into your poor deluded head. The offspring of every generation is still part of the nested hierarchy of its parents!

As a start, you can check out this paper on ERV's shared by humans and chimps as smoking gun evidence of common ancestry and the evolution of sequence through mutation and selection.
www.pnas.org...



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm


correction: you are stonewalling us. any idiot can sit there and just say, "Nope!" which is basically what you are doing. that doesn't make you right. Myself and others have literally just handed this stuff to you. your refusal doesn't negate its validity. and that's the only redeeming quality of this thread so far.


any idiot can sit on this site and post links like just about every evolutionist on this site does
that doesn't make you right
What negates its validity is hard science



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Care to respond to flying fishes evidence (which I have shown you before).
Or is that all just rubbish also?.

Honestly guys don't bother with Born or the OP they are so brainwashed and refuse to even look at the evidence.
For some reason they think they are better than everything else because they are Christian and refuse to accept that we are connected to every living being on earth.
His book says he is better than everything else, made in gods image and no amount of evidence will change his mind.
He and his kind are the definition of ignorant.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

any idiot can sit on this site and deny the evidence presented to them like just about every Creationist on this site does
that doesn't make you right
What negates Creationism and its validity is hard science



edit on 29-11-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: borntowatch

Care to respond to flying fishes evidence (which I have shown you before).
Or is that all just rubbish also?.
.


What that flying fish evolved in to birds, yeah cool



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: borntowatch

any idiot can sit on this site and deny the evidence presented to them like just about every Creationist on this site does
that doesn't make you right
What negates Creationism and its validity is hard science




You know mojo I totally agree, thats why I dont push creation on atheists.
Though irrespective, evolution does not have the hard, factual evidence that many claim.
Flying fish evolved in to birds.
Yeah right



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Never mind "evolution being a farce", the real farce is that anyone is still taking part in this dogmatic troll thread.

Give it up, put the kettle on and do something worthwhile instead folks.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 03:57 AM
link   
May kindly remind you the OP of this thread ?
A nice video showing how humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth together.
I must confess, I brought a similar concept here on ATS. Now please take it for what it's worth :



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Are you dim?.
The poster above my last post is called Flyingfish....
Care to address the evidence? the proof that we are evolutionary cousins with chimps?.
Nah you you just ignore it also and continue being ignorant.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

I would have thought the documentary Jurassic Park would have been enough to convince the heathens that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together.




top topics



 
27
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join